Template talk:COI/Archive 1

Edits required following the TfD
I'm considering the TfD result as being probational on the edits and changes being made to these templates that were identified in the TfD discussion.
 * Template should be placed on the Talk page only
 * Template should not suggest 'COI taint' because of the article's edit history.
 * Language should not be inflamatory or suggest an mal-intent of an editor.
 * There should be a clear identification of when the tag can be removed.
 * It shouldn't look like angry fruit salad.

I've made changes to the templates based on this. --Barberio 09:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On the 'talk page only' thing, I'm considering contacting someone with a suitable bot, to move all the current transclusions to the talk pages. --Barberio 09:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean about the TfD result being probational. Yes, there was rather strong consensus that the templates should at least be reworded, but that doesn't mean that if other people disagree, they must be deleted instead. -Amarkov

moo! 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the templates can be rewritten into a state where they're consistent with wikipedia's standards, then they're going to stay and might be useful. But if they continue to go against wikipedia's standards they're almost certain to end up back on TfD sooner or later. --Barberio 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no such consensus - in fact, I see a strong consensus for the template remaining as-is, with only two or three people suggesting it be retargeted for the talk page. &mdash;Cryptic 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My count says ten people noting the need for a rewrite. And I'm going to assume that those who said the template should have been deleted will support a rewrite too. --Barberio 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. XfD's are not decided by counting, and with all respect, you are highly partisan. You don't have the right to assert what needs to be done here.  You're not in charge here and now.  If anyone wants to edit the templates, please suggest changes. See also Template talk:COI2. Thank you. Jehochman  Talk 03:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you really accusing me of malicious editing? Do you dispute that my edits were in line with the discussion on how the template should be rewritten in it's TfD? Are you prepared to argue against the edits, and all the arguments made in favour of these edits on the TfD, rather than making personal attacks against me? The opinion in favour of a rewrite seems pretty well settled consensus in the TfD, can you please identify the exact problems you found with the edits to the template, and argue why your preferred version should remain. OOtherwise, you're just asserting a claim to authority over who should do what with your template, and we don't allow that here. --Barberio 11:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer for myself: I prefer "tendetious"; yes; that's projection on your part, not what was explicitly said; irrelevant given the third answer; and boy, does WP:KETTLE apply. --Calton | Talk 13:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The admin closing the TfD clearly noted the consensus support for a rewrite. There's a clear body of text in the TfD about a rewrite and what should occur. I just don't get where you're making the conclusion that there isn't support for a rewrite. --Barberio 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So propose new text and see if you can develop a consensus. I am open to changing these for the better, but I oppose weakening them. Jehochman  Talk 15:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose only the moving to talk page part. Additionally, transcluding the template to an article should instead put the article in Category:NPOV disputes... Ranma9617 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also oppose moving the tag to the talk page. Part of this may stem from the different ways in which people use this tag (and therefore it may need to be split into multiple tags.) I use this tag while working on the DEP project. The articles we run into there are short, often new articles, with no internal links (which is how they end up on our triage list.) We use the tag to flag articles that were created by the subject, but may have some potential for notability -- they need extra review to see if there are NPOV issues. We have a definite need for some form of the COI tag that expresses this. Perhaps something along the lines of "the main contributor to this article has a conflict of interest -- this article requires review to insure it have has a NPOV. Please remove this tag when the review is complete." --Kathy A. 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason for a rewrite
You can read all the comments from people saying why the template should be rewritten, and how the template should be rewritten, here. --Barberio 11:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see my $0.02 and proposed new template format at Template Talk:COI2. Wikidemo 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No Progress on a Rewrite?
There has been very little, in fact no progress towards addressing any of the concerns raised on the TfD about the problems with this template. Specifically the general consensus there that this tag belonged on talk pages not article pages, needing wording that does not 'taint' articles because of their edit history, and explaining how the tag can be removed.. --Barberio 16:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick suggestion
Just a quick suggestion, both for COI and COI2:

The neutrality of this article or section is disputed.

The creator of, or one of the main contributors to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles,Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page only. I would also like a reword for 'close personal or business connection' so that it also covers non-provit organisations, and the like. And then categorise in an appropriate category (for WP:COIN), as well as in a category for neutrality. For COI2 we could then also add notability .. for articles that have been created/majorly edited by someone with a (suspected) conflict of interest, and where the patrollers also think the article may not be notable enough. All that is left after that will go to AFD or speedy anyway.

I will have a further thought later, hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category
Is "topics of unclear importance" the right category to associate with this template? Yechiel Man 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, CAT:NN deals with the notability and importance of articles, not a conflict of interest. Until somebody objects, I'm going to start a new category for this template. Panoptical 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing color
I was bold and changed the color of the edge of the template, I thought that orange was quite ugly. Feel free to revert it and discuss more here. Also, I'm not sure if i changed the color correctly,

{{ambox
 * type =
 * image = [[Image:Unbalanced scales.svg|40px]]
 * text =

I deleted "content" from after type =, this changed it to blue which seems to make the template not jump out at the reader so much. Thanks, Urdna 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't the color supposed to follow the template standardization guidelines? Orange means it's a content issue. --Fabrictramp 13:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading the color guidelines some more, I can make a strong case for either orange or yellow, which would eliminate blue. I'm reverting back to orange, pending more discussion. --Fabrictramp 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry; I forgot about the guideline :-/ The color does make sense for content problems. Sorry, Urdna 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Raising the Integrity of Placing COI Tags
It is too easy for someone to put a WP:COI tag on an article. Editors need to take responsibility prior to tagging someone else's hard work in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF. Editors must be able to show that they have taken the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Many of the editors of the articles in question have not been treated with the respect laid out by the WP Admin. Before COI editors become the police, judge & jury it's important to the integrity of WP that these guidelines be followed. In a case where an article I had written was tagged the "COI editor" did not contact me at all prior to tagging my article. When trying to communicate with the "COI editor" and asking for specifics they said " I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation". I believe it is important to the integrity of WP that a COI editor become "well versed" in what they are doing before they take action.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you are currently a party to an issue that has been raised at WP:COIN, please wait until that is over before proposing to change the rules. The problem is still being worked on, and the placement of the COI tags in the case of your articles may be re-done properly. COI tags on an article are usually a sign of a negotiation that is not yet finished. COI warnings to users (like the one issued in your case) are routine and are usually well-justified. I note that your removal of a COI tag from Marta McGonagle is against policy and may cause trouble. Your venturing to close out your own issue at the COI noticeboard is also likely to cause concern. Please cooperate with editors trying to implement the policies, and we'll get this over with.  EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen of your work I believe you are an outstanding editor with the best of intentions, but with all due respect I am not electing to change any rules. I just want to bring the attention to the guidelines already put into place by WP Admin that are not being respected.  I did not mention any names so it wouldn't be a conflict.  In looking at COIs all over wiki, I believe this template has been misused and according to wiki's own guidelines editors should take the responsibility to contact the article creators prior to placing it on the conflict board or putting a COI tag out there.  I have acted openly and with integrity.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, HollywoodFan1 (talk), from what I can tell, you don't have any more of a conflict of interest than any other newbie on those articles. It seems the whole reason you got brought into that discussion was because someone accused you of being a sockpuppet, "it seems you are editing both as HollywoodFan1 and SJR2008," which you clarified was not the case.  Because of that, your involvement in the COI noticeboard discussion really should be over, unless, as you stated, someone has some other kind of accusation about you, which if they did, they really should have put it in the noticeboard notice in the first place.  Also, someone really should have put something like, "HollywoodFan1, you have been mentioned in a COI discussion, Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, on your talk page, which it seems didn't happen.  They have a guideline of not biting newbies, and it seems you've been at least nibbled in this COI notice. Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight. Right after this, that editor put the article I was working on up for deletion. I've been officially WP:BITE.  A couple editors came to my rescue and helped to make the article I was working on stronger. The lesson here is that WP becomes stronger through positive help and editors working with integrity. I still stand strong with the way WP Admin set up this site, that editors should try to work with the creator of an article before putting derogatory tags up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HollywoodFan1 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. I forgot to sign.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Usage
This template has been added to at least 3 articles I have edited, George Khoury (author), Loren Coleman and Comics Bulletin, but I am struggling to find a way to address this. In the first case the subject has edited the article but there are no WP:NPOV issues I can see - if there are no problems to fix it is going to be tricky demon starting that you have addressed concerns. The others need some work but as part of an ongoing process (and in most things causing concern weren't added by those users).

The problem I see is that this template is slapped on any article the subject (or someone closely connected to the subject), when really the notable Wikipedians tag is the best way to flag this issue. If there are WP:NPOV concerns then this should the ones flagged. Equally if you go to the trouble of adding such a banner to the top of an article you should at least spend the time to drop a note into the talk page highlighting the areas of concern so that other editors can address them.

So I'd like to see better documentation on this to stop its indiscriminate use - this is a large and serious template to use on an article (see the TfD discussion) and I think other avenues should be explored first (using NPOV tags and noting this with the notable Wikipedians tag on the talk page). If there are serious problems with a large part of the article that will require a while to fix then I can see this as being a legitimate use (similar to the under construction tag, as it shows work is ongoing and until then people should be cautious about the tone of the article) but it needs some kind of follow-up on the talk page. It seems too many people are spotting the subject has edited the article, slapping this template on the page and walking off thinking "job done". I have seen numerous cases of people editing their own articles and I've checked their edits, flagged it on the talk page and dropped them a note on their talk page pointing them to WP:COI. 99% of such incidents like that can be fixed in this way. People have dropped Loren Coleman a note on COI User talk:Cryptozoo (which led him to following the guidelines and dropping references into the talk page - everyone wins) but no one has done anything similar for User talk:George Khoury.

So there isn't necessarily a problem with this template but there seems to be a big issue with its usage and I think improving the documentation would really help make this a useful template and also ensure that these problems can be resolved (because at the moment those headers are just hanging around and if there are issues that still need fixing then they aren't being as no one has flagged what they are). (Emperor (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
 * The three articles you mention seem to have some neutrality problems: George Khoury (author), Loren Coleman and Comics Bulletin. If someone has time to work on them, I imagine it might be fixed with an hour's work (or less) on each one. Outside views of an article subject are more helpful than a mere collection of their publications or interviews with them. Comics Bulletin seems to have a promotional tone, but that might be cured by shortening the article. If you agree that there is something here needing to be fixed, would you have some time to make these improvements? If not, then maybe we could list these articles at WP:COIN and see if anyone is available to do some rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have dropped in notes into the talk pages of all of those articles. If anyone has suggestions how these issues can be addressed then drop them in there, I or another editor can then work to fix them (I'll also alert the relevant projects). Of them all it is the Khoury that has me stumped, as (with the usual caveats) I can't see any neutrality issues. I did start a bibliography to stop the biography section from getting too "listy" (he wrote this and this and this) so that could be snipped but the main problem I see is that it needs expanding (which people might be loath to do with such a strong notice pinned to the top of the article - I know I have avoided editing them because I don't know if any additions I make would be removed if a major rewrite was called for).
 * It doesn't either address my broader point, I'm sure given time we can fix any major issues on those specific entries, what I'm saying is that this is an "aggressive" tag (when not followed up its finger-pointing can just lead to confusion - note the comment from one editor saying they don't have COIs with the site, it may not have even been their edits we won't know unless someone is specific) and people need to put in a bit more time actually explaining why they added it and what needs to be done to fix any issues. It should be a last resort with adding notable wikipedians being used first along with fixing things and if you can't then add a neutrality tag. If the problems are too widespread and the article needs hefty work then I can see it might have some use, but again only if there is actual specific follow-up or everyone is left to try and guess what the problems are which makes working to address them much more difficult. (Emperor (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
 * George Khoury (author) sounds promotional. Incomplete articles, and tagged articles, are placeholders indicating that future work is needed. I can see the future work needed in this case. The lack of any critical information, or any comparison with others, is a clue that the article is one-sided. The Guardian article given as an external link in Khoury's article is the only hint of a true outside evaluation. The four items in Khoury's reference section are all publisher blurbs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Is there a reason that this template is not semi-protected? Maybe it should be, considering its high visibility and potential to antagonize some editors. Enviroboy TalkCs 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Protected. Rich Farmbrough, 15:57 16 August 2008 (GMT).

recent edits
editprotected

We recently lost the word "may" in the template text. I thought it was pretty standard to have an element of doubt there. This should be reverted until it's discussed. Dropping the protection to semi would also be nice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Anetode removed the 'may.' I asked him to join this discussion. I support keeping at least semi-protection on the article. This template is not the kind of thing that needs to be edited very often. I'd say it's on the edge between templates needing semi and templates needing full. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It troubles me that "may" is a standard. There is a difference between a general disclaimer of the sort linked to at the bottom of each Wikipedia page and a problem template. In most cases coi is used when a conflict of interest is unquestionable or self-admitted. I think that a conservative approach provides a better service to the reader and even in the minority of cases where coi concerns stem from a simple misunderstanding, an editor has still expressed concern over the article. Including "may" makes the template meaningless: any of the article contributors "may" have a conflict of interest, most contributors actually do, if only to a small degree. A bold warning of bias is the least Wikipedia editors can provide for readers who are not familiar with the tendentious editors who claim ownership over controversial articles or advocates who use Wikipedia as just another media outlet. This is why advert simply states:
 * This article or section is written like an advertisement.
 * See? A clear an unambiguous assessment that's actually useful to both editors and readers. As it was, the coi template was just horribly phrased. EdJohnston alerted me to this thread and proposed an alternate wording:
 * It may be reasonably inferred that a major contributor to this article has a conflict of interest with the article subject.
 * This is a very delicate alternate phrasing that is similarly flawed. By whom, the reader will ask, could the inference be made? Let's do away with the passive and diluted legalese usually employed in fear of potential liability. In the spirit of bold, if you come across an apparent conflict of interest, label it as such! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference is that COI implies serious wrongdoing on behalf of an editor. Again, I ask that this be reverted for now until discussion has been had. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, so do advert, hoax, autobiography & other problem templates. WP:SPADE. Is there any particular reason you want this reverted other than the wishy-washy status quo? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because those other templates relate to the article, not the editor. autobiography has a "may" in it. The "wishy-washy status quo" is there because leaving no wriggle room leaves the thing as a flat accusation, and we're not meant to address our comments in such a way. The status quo is the result of considerable discussion across the project, and shouldn't be discarded lightly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, these templates do indeed refer to the editor. Advert states that the article author wrote an advertisement, hoax states that the article is completely made up by the author (far worse than your run-of-the-mill coi), and autobiography clearly states, "This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject" - the only "may" appears in the end, "may not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy", and does not modify the reported state of the article. And the phrasing of this template wasn't arrived by considerate, or actually any discussion within the project, it was an arbitrary decision of the template's creator (check history). What's worse, the original read like a lengthy disclaimer that left the reader more confused than alerted. So, we do address our comments in such a way and you still haven't explained exactly why straightforward phrasing is inappropriate. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They evidently don't, according to the English language's concept of the subject of a sentence. If you can't see the difference between "this article is written like an advertisement" and "an editor has a conflict of interest" then I don't think I can explain it to you. Why is it inappropriate? Because COI of the sort which results in an article being tagged is rarely clear-cut: the template is typically applied to suspected COI, which is very different from confirmed COI. By giving the text less wiggle room, you are actually restricting its use to places where the COI is without doubt - which are in fact the least useful instances of said template, because where COI is blatant it usually doesn't last very long once the article gets some eyeballs. And indeed, it likely means that the tag will be removed from articles where COI is likely but not proven because of its absolutism. Swapping "may have" for "has" does not make the text overly-long, but gives the editor in question some benefit of doubt (assumption of good faith and all that). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finally expanding on what you meant. Thanks also for the English lesson, although I see that you too hold a selective understanding of the language. Perhaps you can explain to me how autobiography doesn't specify authorship, or how you can label an article an advertisement or hoax without implicating its contributors. Aside from the half-assed semantic jabs, however, you do make a salient point. While I suspect that most cases of COI are obvious enough to warrant saying it outright, there's no reason not to have room for a suspectedcoi template to allow for a non-confrontational approach to asserting that a conflicted editor was involved in an article. If one were created, I would eagerly support the adoption of EdJohnston's aforementioned wording. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can't see how "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is served by making the subject of a sentence the article and not the user then I can see why you think advert (which doesn't mention editors at all) has the same tone by "implication". But that's not really the point. Given that this template is currently used to indicate suspected, rather than confirmed, COI, I don't see why the onus is on other people to create a new template, when this one served the purpose just fine until yesterday. If there's no support for the new wording then it should be reverted pending discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aargh, could you please read over the things you link to? "[W]hen there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." You can refer to my first comment in this thread for the explanation of the change. In short, the onus is on the contributor to explain away or admit to a conflict of interest, advertorial, or hoax content, and to verify it using outside sourcing. Until and unless disputed content tags are addressed, they should describe the nature of the dispute. Active voice is preferential to a passive "may or may not" assertion because the latter has no meaning. Hence the difference between a general content disclaimer and alerting readers and editors of a specific violation of Wikipedia editorial guidelines. Finally, the vast majority of COI tags are applied to blatantly obvious instances, just look over WP:COIN. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(De-indent) Seeing as our conversation has turned to an unfriendly stalemate, I've solicited input from WP:UW. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Disabling editprotected pending discussion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-enabling. Seeing as I'm unable to participate in the usual cycle because only administrators can edit the page, editprotected is the only way to express the usual sentiment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Editprotected is only for uncontroversial, immediate edits; see the instructions at Template:Editprotected. Since there is no agreement in this thread, no admin is going to edit the template at the moment. Once some agreement is found here, then add an editprotected tag. You could also try 'requested edits' section of WP:RFPP, which is intended to handle changes that don't have complete agreement. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion: This template and autobiography are mainly commenting on the contributor(s) with only a minor fob to content issues, while advert and hoax are commenting on the content. Perhaps the former two should be eliminated completely and instead pov, disputed, unreferenced, advert, and/or other content templates should be used in articles instead depending on what is actually wrong with the content. Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't confront editors who make COI or autobiographical edits, just we shouldn't slap tags in the articles for these reasons alone. Anomie⚔ 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to whoever rechanged the template. The old one was too accusative, especially since it's hard to discover the true identity AND motives of editors.

Please fix misleading or ambiguous wording
editprotected The current text, "A major contributor to this article or its creator ...", can be interpreted to mean "A major contributor to this article, or a major contributor to this article's creator, ...". That is obviously not the intended meaning. Just adding commas will help: "A major contributor to this article, or its creator, ...". Alternatively, please rephrase to remove the ambiguity. —AlanBarrett (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about "The creator of, or a major contributor to, this article ... "? Martin 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both seem like fine ways of patching up the grammar error. Themfromspace (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've obviated the need for any awkward phrasing by eliminating the "creator" bit altogether. The creator is a major contributor, almost by definition, so it's redundant to include it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this template violate WP:NPA?
I see this was discussed a bit above, but it seems to me that this template is an explicit violation of "Comment on content, not on the contributor". True, "referring to other editors is not always a personal attack", but it should be obvious that whenever used, this does much, much more than just refer to editors. If this template is allowed to remain, then the lead of WP:NPA needs to be significantly changed (and no, I am not trying to make a WP:POINT about NPA.) PSWG1920 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, NPA needs to differentiate appropriate discussion of editors from inappropriate discussion. There's been a great deal of discussion on the use of this template in Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard as well as in this template's AfD linked at the top of this page. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The full quote from WP:NPA is "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack". The other exception is "discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion". There is no provision whatsoever for commenting on the contributor outside of disagreements about content (except in the appropriate forum, e.g. talk pages, WP:COIN) and nor should there be any.


 * Thus accusations of conflicts of interest (including via the COI tag) in the absence of supporting policy violations (eg WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO, etc.) constitutes prima facie evidence of a WP:NPA violation. -- samj in out 11:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is a cause not a crime
There are many problems with this template that have been discussed at length over the years, however it is also clear that it can serve a useful purpose when deployed properly (and sparingly). The COI template:
 * is disparaging of article authors, editors and subjects (and potentially defamatory)
 * undermines articles which may not actually be problematic
 * discourages declaration of conflicts
 * does not identify specific issues (e.g. WP:NPOV)
 * implies that the only way to resolve is to rewrite
 * ignores that conflicted editors can be valuable contributors (both knowledgeable and motivated)

The primary misunderstanding is that WP:COI is a cause that gives rise to other violations such as WP:NPOV - it is not a violation in and of itself. As such it should only ever be deployed as an explanation for some other violation also identified, and only until such time as that violation is resolved (it is, after all, a cleanup template, not a permanent brand).

Some editors assume bad faith in claiming that "it's our duty to point out to readers that the information they were reading was planted for them by the subject" when in fact it is our duty to deliver them good information by identifying and resolving such issues. At the time of writing there are some 2,500 articles tagged and a disconcerting proportion are tagged punitively even in the absence of any e.g. WP:NPOV violation (which has the unwanted side effect of concealing those in drastic need of remediation).

Rather than remove such tags or [re]propose this template for deletion (acknowledging that it can be a useful tool for dealing with extreme cases) I have written an essay entitled "Conflict of interest is a cause not a crime" (shortcuts WP:NOTCOI and WP:WHYCOI) that I hope will prove useful to other editors in discussing articles, AfD debates, etc. and for defending against allegations that are notoriously difficult to counter. In doing so I hope to raise awareness of the issue and provide a solution that should satisfy both sides of the long running debate (that is, limiting the COI template to instances where WP:COI has given rise to other violations such as WP:NPOV). -- samj in out 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing with a COI is a fundamental opposition to the principles of Wikipedia, so, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it IS a crime. The kinds of edits you've been doing are basically outright spamming, so anyone who cares about policies here is of course going to be upset about it. DreamGuy (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you say, but as has been pointed out to you already, this essay accurately reflects WP:COI. -- samj in out 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
As the above discussion and link to WP:WHYCOI shows, the tag as currently situated is often used as a punitive measure or personal attack. If an article is neutrally written and Wikipedia-compliant, the identity of author is irrelevant. On the other hand, some articles are created by someone with a possible COI, and editors need to evaluate these articles. Unfortunately, this tag is being asked to serve both purposes. I have created COI-check to be used to check whether an article presents COI/NPOV problem, and suggest we make the {coi} template clear that it reflects an actual dispute over the neutrality of an article. THF (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was previously a second template (COI2) that has since been deleted and it seems there is sufficient confusion over one tag to suggest that introducing another may create more. Indeed the POV and POV-check templates are often more suitable than COI anyway as they highlight the issue rather than the cause. This discussion has rings of an earlier one about including the word "may" vs a firm accusation too (status quo is to say "appears to have"). In terms of this specific template you might want to split it at "neutrality/because" ala:
 * This article or section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
 * An editor who has substantially contributed to the current version may have a conflict of interest.
 * Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.
 * Another idea would be to add (and require?) an explanation argument to the COI template for editors to identify the specific issue(s) along with the cause, or just to use WP:WHYCOI to encourage editors to use issue-specific templates in addition to or in place of the COI template. -- samj in out 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a thin line to walk. I personally like the idea of a tag that serves more as an action-item for COI/POV investigation, rather than a dig at what could be a subject-matter expert who's not familiar with guidelines (as I've found to often be the case). While the root problem with COI tends to be NPOV, perhaps having a seperate category for COI investigations would allow a split-out of the heavily loaded POV category. While this may be considered cat-creep, it allows folks (like myself) a quick list of places where some COI guideline advice may be needed, for those users genuinely intending to further the wiki, and not just advertise their products. Arakunem Talk 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps, we just need to re-purpose the existing COI template. Make it so that, as it does now, the article is put into a "Possible COI" category, but the difference being, a COI Patroller would evaluate the article and remove the tag once it is determined that the editor in conflict is abiding by the COI guidelines. Arakunem Talk 18:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond my comments elsewhere - that I don't see the COI tag as punitive in the way User:Samj appears to - a difficulty is that the COI tag is actually useful. As you say, the root problem is NPOV, but there are other edit patterns that are commonly problematical when COI exists (promotional patterns of multiple article creation, WP:OWN, Talk page disruptions of various kinds, etc). If this is happening, COI is a useful label, for pending-places-to-check, and for places of ongoing multiple issues that others ought to know about (and where the focus is a user rather than, say, one policy).
 * A mechanism for more rapid patrolling would be good. As I've said elsewhere, COI obviously becomes inappropriate if the editor it applied to has long since gone. Again as I've said elsewhere, if we find COI tags still there years later, it doesn't mean it's a punishment; it just means Wikipedia is a highly imperfect system and no-one got round to dealing with it. Perhaps because identifying potential COI is easy (e.g. articlename = username) but negotiating with COI editors is so often exhausting and annoying that it's easier to tag and move on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When User:Mianhammad59 says that Mian Muhammad Aslam Advocate "successfully emerged as one of the best lawyers of Punjab province" the COI tag is absolutely appropriate. When User:Stuartyeates writes a quality, balanced article about his late grandfather John Stuart Yeates and gets tagged anyway it's sickening and embarassing. From edits like this, this and this it seems that you think the COI tag needs to remain in place until long after (~2 years in these cases) the conflicted editor is gone, which is patent nonsense. -- samj in out 03:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * sickening and embarassing
 * I don't agree. It was appropriate to tag for checking of notability and neutrality, and it's only sickening and embarrassing if you treat the COI tag as some deep and deliberate insult, which it's not. Besides, User:Stuartyeates has been here long enough to know that creating an article about a close relative was likely to be http://code.google.com/p/indexifier/.
 * it seems that you think the COI tag needs to remain in place until long after (~2 years in these cases) the conflicted editor is gone, which is patent nonsense.
 * That's complete misrepresentation of my view. I removed the tags becaused you'd queried their presence, and I agreed in this case they were no longer appropriate. In this case they just happened to be that old. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is why such an article might be "problematical" in the absence of policy violations. Some claim that COI is problematic by itself (a view which is not supported by policy btw) and others claim that it is accusations of COI without supporting violations that are problematic (which is supported by policy). It is the absence of COI policy that gives rise to this deadlock and leads to disputes. Banning conflicted editing is infeasible (it will happen anyway) and anything which punishes rather than rewards conflict disclosures just exacerbates the problem by forcing it underground. Requiring conflict disclosures while also requiring justification of COI tag placement with supporting violations is one way that we could migrate WP:COI to policy which would have the positive side effect of clearing up the backlog. Adding an intensive AfD style COI review workflow as suggested elsewhere would further reduce the backlog, improving the quality of Wikipedia while (safely) tapping the resource of conflicted editors. -- samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, this template should be used in the cases where the conflict of interest is a problem (in neutral wording, "where there is an editor with a(n apparent/possible) conflict of interest who turns this article in a promotional text"). It is a bit different from POV, an editor without a conflict of interest can still have a non-neutral point of view; the POV editor does not have to become personal better from the edits, but still insist that he is telling the truth (though having a COI can be another reason for having a POV).  If the editor with the presumed COI abides by the guidelines, and the article is neutral and encyclopedic and not promotional, then there is no reason to add the tag (hey, we have numerous editors with a known and expressed conflict of interest, which are good editors!).  If the tag is used on articles which are neutral and where the author has a clear COI .. then indeed it is incriminating.  IMHO, the wording should be in a way that suggests the COI editor to help and neutralise the subject (they are the specialist, generally ..).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose a rewrite of this tag, the current tag is an adequate presentation of the issue. If the tag is being abused it should be taken down, as with all other tags that are being abused.  The COI tag is an indicator to readers that the article is suspected of being edited with a conflict of interest.  This is valuable information to readers who otherwise wouldn't go to the talk page or history of an article.  They will otherwise assume that the article has been edited by the community as a whole, not by the subject of the article.  I suspect readers won't look at the articles the same way if they knew who wrote them.  This tag is very informative. Conflicts of interest on Wikipedia have been well-documented in the news and the opinions of Wikipedia and the COI editors it has generated have not been positive.  (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not all that surprising though given you're the editor I quoted anonymously above as saying "it's our duty to point out to readers that the information they were reading was planted for them by the subject", later adding that "If an article still has a significant percentage of it that was written by a conflict of interest, the tag should remain until it is cleaned up or approved by editors who don't have a COI". The tag is intended as an indicator to editors that the article needs attention, not to readers that the article and/or editors and/or Wikipedia are untrustworthy. You're absolutely right that "readers won't look at the articles the same way if they knew who wrote them" and that the tag is "very informative" - it is perhaps the single most effective and efficient way of undermining any trust a reader may have had in an article, its author(s) and/or its subject, and a good way to WP:BITE the newcomers too.
 * Let's see, you've tagged Daily Record (Maryland) despite it being neutral bordering on boring and bitten some poor guy writing about his late grandfather, John Stuart Yeates, both without citing any actual violations. When questioned you've said that you "strongly believe that any users of this article should be aware that the article was typed by a person very likely to be personally related to the company", adding that "this style of editing is not what Wikipedia is about" while leaving the tag in place. What policy are you relying on in claiming this is not what Wikipedia is about? I'd say that it's more about assuming good faith, not biting newcomers and publishing articles from a neutral point of view than personal attacks.
 * On the other hand, tagging Mian Muhammad Aslam Advocate by User:Mianhammad59 and containing gems like "[he] successfully emerged as one of the best lawyers of Punjab province" with COI is commendable, and a great example of where the tag should be used.
 * Anyway we clearly have a malignant problem so rather than "strongly opposing" attempts to resolve it how about you work on coming up with a better suggestion. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 03:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My guideline is WP:PROMOTION. "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable." And yes, I strongly believe that an article with most of its content written with a COI should be tagged as such, if you want to debate that bring it to WP:COI and not this template, as you're arguing against what is the current consensus on Wikipedia.  The template should represent this consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already a pointer to this discussion at WT:COI. Per WP:MULTI, let's hold it in one place.  As your own quote indicates, nothing in WP:PROMOTION warns users that they will be punished with a tag if they follow Wikipedia policies and edit with a neutral point of view.  Punitive use of the tag when no NPOV problem exists violates WP:NPA, because it is commenting on the editor, not the edits. THF (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like User:Samj, you're presuming the COI tag is "punishment". It's not. I don't think anyone disagrees that we shouldn't have long-term tags after an issue is settled; but that's a procedural weakness that can be mended. And whatever conflicting tenets exist elsewhere, the reality is that the focus of COI editing is an editor, and commonly involves WP:MULTI problems beyond simple inside-article-neutrality, making it far more useful to handle via WP:COIN. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's not punishment, then that's all the more reason to rewrite the tag to make clear that it is not a black mark. But it sounds like we need a tag that is a black mark, and one that serves as a flag for further investigation.  And that it needs to be made clear that long-term tags post-issue-settlement are a violation of NPA.
 * For the POV tag, we require an explanation be given on the talk page. It's not such a terrible thing if we require editors to actually justify why they have placed the tag, and point out that the mere existence of a conflict without any policy violation means there should not be a tag. THF (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Having both been "accused" of it and had problems with others known or suspected COIs, the main change I would like to see is that the text:
 * A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject.
 * It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. Should be changed to "an explanation has been given on a new section of talk page" and require people give one in a new section in talk. Maybe even go further and say that if tag is put up without explanation anyone may remove it. It is annoying for people to stick that on an article and not explain why!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any precedent for linking to a predefined section on the talk page? -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stongly opposed to any rewrite that gives people who are basically spammers more reasons to try to rationalize their violations of policy. At this point User:Samj should be close to being banned for continuous self-promotion. The fact that he runs off and whines that he feels slighted is not a reason to cave in. DreamGuy (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been repeatedly warned about this harassment so I respectfully request that you stick to the topic. You could start by explaining how spammers might be facilitated by requiring editors to justify use of the COI tag with supporting violations. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was sticking to the topic, and phony baloney warnings from you an someone who wasn't paying attention to the source of the problem does not mean I was being warned against harassment, it means a spammer was falsely accusing me of it to try to get away with more spamming. And how spammers would be facilitated by weakening rules against COI is bloody obvious. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also opposed to a rewrite that would give spammers a break. No one is proposing one.  Actual COIs that make self-promotional edits in mainspace that violate NPOV will still face sanctions. THF (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, samj clearly was proposing one, as confirmed by others below. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) DreamGuy, I second your thoughts. Anybody who brings up changing the wording of anything related to COI shouldn't have had a conflict of interest with Wikipedia in the past. The change would be suspect of NPOV and, ironically, a conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll note that many of the people involved in this discussion fall into that category after being driven here by the very [ab]use that we seek to resolve. You'll also note that I fully support keeping the COI template for obvious abuses like this which have a laundry list of supporting violations (N, V, NPOV and AUTO to name a few). Outside of an explanation for other violations though the COI tag comments on the contributor, not the content (actually it disparages both, and the subject too) and thus can be considered a personal attack. You have made your position clear in response to my complaint and that's fine because fortunately policy does not support excluding people from policy decisions. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 01:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to you. I've made my point clear and if you seek to misinterpret it then go ahead and be my guest. I have full confidence that the consensus at Wikipedia won't let you rewrite the guidelines in order to appease your personal agenda. Themfromspace (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, if we go back to the top of the section, I was the one that made this proposal. Don't reflexively oppose something just because Samj supported it (and Samj should really begin to WP:COOL and realize that his confrontational debating style is counterproductive). THF (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, like you say, it's your proposal not mine. This exchange is OT and should probably be hidden so as not to derail your discussion. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted the hiding: the discussion is relevant, and I'd rather others decided what to hide, especially as the hiding effectively redacted two editors' statements about why they oppose the change.
 * In case my view isn't clear: I strongly agree with Themfromspace and DreamGuy. I'm finding it extremely difficult to see good faith in an editor's advocacy to water down COI procedure immediately after being the subject (and a considerably tendentious one at that) of a COI procedure. A COI tag is neither a punishment nor a personal attack, and I'm not going to support a template change based on trying to spin it as one. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gordon, please don't let your anger at Samj color your view of a legitimate proposal. The fact is that many people do view a COI tag as a punishment or personal attack, and it's not "watering down" the tag to make it consistent with existing Wikipedia policies and so that there is both a strong tag and a softer less WP:BITEy tag. THF (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume what I'm feeling.
 * The fact is that many people do view a COI tag as a punishment or personal attack
 * The fact is that those with an inclination toward self-promotion have hissy fits about anything that impedes their doing it. That's not our worry. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually just about to suggest that all three of you come back and contribute responses that aren't based on accusing me of being a spammer for creating a neutral, non-commercial, encyclopedic article about intellectual property abuse - a topic I care deeply about. Nobody is talking about "watering down" COI, least of all me. In fact I was the one who suggested turning it into an enforceable policy by requiring disclosure at the same time as requiring identification of supporting violations when placing the COI tag. It is absolutely offensive to some to be accused of succombing to a conflict of interest, as evidenced by my responses to accusations from the three of you in which I called for justification. Just like harassment it prevents others from enjoying editing and in the absence of other violations it gains nothing. Furthermore it can have a material negative affect on editors (including other editors of the same article), not to mention the subject of the article and ultimately Wikipedia itself. What is most ironic is that if you refer to the very first comment you will see that I am not necessarily even in support of THF's proposal that you are trying valiantly to scuttle soley because of my involvement. I personally think all three of you should be ignored completely until such time as you come up with a better explanation as to how you think either proposal would "water down" COI and/or "facilitate spammers", bearing in mind that consensus is not a vote. I'm sorry for being short with you but I'm sick and tired of the attacks (which is policy btw, COI is not... yet). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While not wanting to stick myself in the middle of an existing debate here, I do want to agree that the COI template still needs work because it doesn't match the policy, and the template is more widely read than the policy. The template portrays a COI as a person who should be generally disallowed from editing a particular article due to an innate and irrevocable conflict of interest; thus making them _persona nongrata_, an "enemy of the article". Who can blame the Wiki-cops for thinking this is so? They read the template everyday, and the essays maybe once ever. By contrast, the "COI editors" who get templated, go off and read the documents linked in the template, and come back with a completely different sense of COI than the Wiki-cops who templated them and are now watching them. Hilarity ensues...

The template's wrong notion also invites speculation and intrusion onto the identity of the editor - a bankrupt game because at best, it's Original Research, and at worst, it's exposing the other editor's identity.  Anyway, "interest" is a morass. We want experts to edit, right?

Preferably, the language should better handle the case where the COI is not actually a problem. Yes, yes, our beloved Wiki-cops should only use it when the COI is actually causing problems like NPOV or tendentiousness -- but the fact is they do overuse it. Ideally, it would be nerfed as to be useless for editors whose motivation is nonlegitimate. I think there is a high incidence of misuse, intended or not, simply because COI is so hard to guess at. Harpwolf (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag should be there both for obvious problems and potential problems: It serves as a flag that people need to pay closer attention to the content, both readers and editors. If someone who edited the page substantially has a COI we should alert people to it, probably more so in the cases where bias isn't obvious, because obvious problems are easy to see and evaluate for oneself whereas the not as obvious ones can be insidious. Once editors without the COI go through and decide that there is no COI problem then the tag can be removed. Changing the tag or restricting its use means we might as well delete it, as it can't be used in the situations that it most needs to be used. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Style updates
Minor tweaks to the layout (no wording changes) for legibility and consistency. Code is in the sandbox, just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Appears?"
What about the cases when "major contributor" does not appear but genuinely does have interest in the topic? Is there a template that clearly identifies the author as involved? As the lady said on the radio, "I'm fat and I'm proud!", why hide behind "appearing"? NVO (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is all part of assuming good faith. A person with a connection to the topic is still able to (and allowed to) edit the article neutrally, that is, without being in a COI state. The tag therefore states that the person "may be" or "appears to have" a COI. To know 100% requires us to know what they are thinking, which is of course not possible. They may be editing completely in good faith, and just not understanding the policies, etc. Very often they are new to Wikipedia, so the softer tone of the tag also prevents us from driving them away. Arakunem Talk 16:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with NVO's point. There should be an optional template argument that removes the 'appears to be' part. In the real world, in the political, scientific research, and medical research arenas, where there is a conflict of interest, it is usually REQUIRED that a conflicted party who would otherwise sit in judgement be uninvolved.  A conflicted party is usually required to recuse itself, and be removed if that doesn't occur.  (The ArbCom [To do: insert ArbCom info here].  Arakunem is wrong; you certainly do not need to know what the party is thinking to know there's a COI.  There is a COI if a person edit an article about them, period.  If a party works for a company, there is a COI if they edit the company's page, period.  That doesn't mean use of this template is appropriate, however.  Often, there is no need to draw attention to such COIs.  I'm aware of several COIs that I don't feel need to be flagged with this template, even though they concern me.)--Elvey (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT a boardroom, a court or a university. If the COI is so blatant as to adversely affect the article, then your keyboard already has this nice key on it which can be used to resolve the issue directly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Foul template text
The text pinpoints: "a major contributor". This is pointing fingers, like "You there stink! Go away take a shower!" instead of "This article has some serious flaws!". I think it borders to violating WP:PERSONAL and is not quite WP:CIVIL and is definitely in conflict with assuming WP:GOODFAITH. I promise to never ever use this template, although I know of a few cases where it might have been relevant. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And, if you suspect I mean You!, you're probably wrong: I meant another article, not that one! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous subject?
"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page."

Shouldn't "It may require cleanup" read "The article may require cleanup"? It's definitely a minor issue, since the meaning is clear (I imagine) to probably everyone. It's just that there are three other nouns in the preceding sentence ("contributor", "connection", and "subject"), each of which could technically be the subject of that middle sentence. SamEV (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page only tag
I propose that COI tags should be limited to talk pages only, in the form of requiring the username and a reason for the tag (and Smackbot can date it). Omiting a username or reason would generate an error message (Error: No username or reason provided). Placing it on an article would also generate an error message (Error - this tag may only be placed on talk pages).

The text would be "It is suspected that user may have a too close a connection to the topic because reason. Please review their edits. If user has written without bias, this tag shall be removed. This article has been tagged since date.

Thoughts? D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  03:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines... Here is an example talk page template for Declared COI    Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     15:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a repeated suggestion. No, the problems are with the page itelf, just like unreferenced, advert, etc. It should identify what problems there are, and if they are resolved or not there, the template can be removed. I see no reason why this tag should not be on the mainspace page. Identifying the user (or IP range ..) does not help, but that can, with care, be mentioned in a talkpage discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Our articles are not finished products and we should let our readers know exactly what's wrong with them and what they can do to help. That this particular tag stays on the article page is doubly important as pages written with a conflict of interest are oftentimes deceptive. We should let the readers know to be mindful of this.  Them From  Space  16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I do have the feeling that these suggestions to move, delete, &c. this template are generally because people expect that this template is used in a sense of 'HEY, a COI user, lets tag the article they are working on', that is not the case (at least, that should not be the case), the template is used when an article has problems, which are due to an editor with a COI. There are many good articles out there, mainly written by the subject, which have no problems due to neutrality, advertising, whatsoever (As themfromspace says, beware of the deceptively neutral/non-advertising articles) - and such articles should, despite being written by the subject, not be tagged. As such, it is a special case of the advertising-tag or neutrality-tag, though their use can and does overlap. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that the mainspace tag is the start of a process.  Some next steps:
 * transition to a talk page Maintained template
 * transition to a talk page Declared COI template/statement
 * transition to a talk page Connected contributor template
 * etc..    Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? If someone resolves the issues, the tag on the mainpage can be removed. And there may never be a moment that the COI is declared. The Connected contributor on the talkpage is completely independent, and could be applied anyway. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The big problem with the COI tag is that it doesn't really identify a problem with the article, just with its author. If it's not a neutral point-of-view we can tag that. If it's not referenced, we can tag that. Tag the article with specific tags that people can actually deal with, and the tag that explains why there are problems (because of conflict-of-interest) can go on the talk page. I do stand by the mandatory user and reason parts, because without that, the only person who understands the tag is the person who placed it. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  05:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is just another form of 'not neutral' or 'advertisement'-tagging, but with the additional point that there was an author with a COI.  That shows exactly what is wrong with the article, and that is what should be done.  This is a tag that people can actually deal with.  Identifying the user should not be done, that is making it personal, risking outing (see the vagueness of the description of the coi-author - the tagger may not know for sure), and there is NO need for that.  The reason is clear, the article is not neutral/advertising due to an author with a COI.  But as I said, we have been here over and over, and we always get back to the same point, see previous discussions.  It is just a variety of advertising or neutrality, and although these problems may be less visible, if the tag is there, neutrality is the problem where the article needs checking for. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2012
Hi, I have had a go at trying to tidy this article up, remnove bias and verify sources. Please can you scan it and check it for neutrality? Thank you Conanthevegetarian (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Conanthevegetarian (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You appear to be lost. This page is for discussion the COI template itself, not any particular article that may be tagged as COI. Please go to the article in question and post on its talk page. Anomie⚔ 20:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Update from sandbox
Please update the template from the sandbox at Template:COI/sandbox. Improvements: 1. Implementation of the latest Ambox functionalities, with no changes to the functioning of the template. 2. Addition of a "section" parameter, which became necessary after the redirect of Template:COI-section here per this Tfd discussion. Debresser (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - F ASTILY  (TALK) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Plural?
Hi there. A short thing that occurred to me: Shouldn't we change "A major contributor..." to "One or more major contributor(s)..." to clarify that the tag also applies if multiple COI people are involved? Or maybe we could add a variable like to automatically output "2 major contributors..."? Regards  So Why  22:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this template is redundant and misused more than it helps anything
Please add so we can look at deleting this. Insomesia (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you open the TfD discussion first? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 25, thank you. Insomesia (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Anomie⚔ 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Update 'Usage' section
Under 'Usage' we currently state - "Unless you are able to immediately correct the problem, please also post at the talk page, explaining specifically why you feel there was a conflict of interest."

I feel this could be worded better. For starters if the problem is corrected then there is no need for a clean-up template. I also think we should emphasize that specific actionable items should be listed on the talk page that once addressed includes removing of the COI tag. For starters I suggest:
 * If you have immediately corrected the problem there is no need for a COI clean-up tag, this is not a badge of shame. If you still feel there are specific actionable issues please post them on the talk page. Once these are addressed the COI tag should be removed.

To me this helps emphasize that we don't just label an article and forget it but try to address specific issues and fix the article so no COI issues remain. I think this may help people who are making a good faith effort to identify and rectify COI tag issues. Thoughts? Insomesia (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Insomesia (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit requested August 4, 2012
In order for this template to be displayed properly in Multiple issues properly, could someone please change this from: | text =  A major contributor to this  appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. to: | issue =  A major contributor to this appears to have a close connection with its subject. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * fix  = It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to evade the effect of consensus reached in a deletion discussion
This template was discussed at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_25. The result was a consensus to keep it. Within a few days, the template was changed from saying that there was a conflict of interest which might posasibly cause non-neutrality to saying that there was non-neutrality which might possibly be due to a conflict of interest. This change was the result of a discussion initiated on this page by the editor who had started the deletion discussion. That editor introduced the discussion on this page with the words "Since the tag is not being...", and went on to say that the idea was "to address what I see as deficiencies with this clean-up tag". He/she dismissed the majority of editors in the deletion discussion, whose consensus prevailed there, as "the crowd", and said "so let's see how much it can be fixed until it's ultimately deleted".

The view that there was no place for a tag the main point of which was to say that there was a conflict of interest, and that instead one should use only tags saying that there an article was non-neutral (if that was the case) was proposed in the deletion discussion, but consensus was against it. What has happened here is that the person who initiated the deletion discussion, instead of accepting that discussion, has taken steps which effectively undermined that discussion. There was a clear consensus in the discussion that wee should keep a template that pointed out that an article had been edited by one or more editors with a conflict of interest, which might possibly lead to problems. Instead of that consensus being accepted, a small group of editors who disagree with consensus have removed that template, and replaced it with a very different one. We already have templates to state that an article is written from a non-neutral point of view. The discussion above makes it perfectly clear that the participants were well aware that what they were doing was contrary to consensus in the deletion discussion. For example, we have "Why use this instead of POV and tags for whatever other issues actually exist?" to which comes the response "That was exactly my point but the crowd wants to keep the template so let's see how much it can be fixed until it's ultimately deleted", and then "I would tend to agree with Anomie, but it seems the TfD participants do not share this opinion. So why not base it more on that wording ..."

I first discovered this problem when I added a conflict of interest tag to an article, and found it produced totally inappropriate wording to the article. What is worse, this has changed the wording on many existing articles already tagged. Effectively, the small group of editors who have made this change have changed wording on over 6700 articles to say something very different than what was intended by the editors who tagged those articles.

To justify overturning consensus at a deletion discussion within a few days requires more than the discussion among a small handful of editors that has taken place here. Rather than acting immediately when I discovered the problem, I have waited two days to give myself time to think this through and be sure of what I was doing. The conclusion I have reached, as will by now be apparent, is that this was a completely unacceptable failure to accept consensus. I shall restore the template which was discussed and for which there was consensus that it should be kept. Editors who don't like it don't have to use it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the deletion discussion was focussed more on if it should be kept or not. Most of the respondents didn't weigh in on how it was being used, was the wording accurate or anything else but that the tag was useful. And I stated in my own comment that i wouldn't have started that discussion had the previous one been posted on this page, which I did once learning of it. So the only point of several rounds of discussing the wording was to try to address some remaining problems. Rather that unilaterally dismissing that discussion you could instead try to persuade that the current wording is still not sufficient. In most cases I've looked at this template is installed with no discussion or reasoning on the talk page. That is it is delivered as a vague problem identified as COI with no evidence whatsoever. And it is left, for up to five years now, with other editors having little clue as to what actual issues it is referring. I'm a little offended that you think anyone was trying to do anything but help it be more of a help than a question mark. Just because consensus was to keep it hardly means it can't be improved. Insomesia (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But there is a considerable difference between improving it and changing it into something completely different from what was discussed. Getting rid of the conflict of interest template and replacing it with a variation of an NPOV template that mentions possible COI as a secondary matter is not in any meaningful sense keeping the conflict of interest template. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That wording came from a consensus during discussion. I think it's ironic that you are now throwing out a consensus decision for your preferred version. I find it frustrating that we would now have to start the entire process again. Insomesia (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

JBW: I would echo what Insomesia has said above. The TfD discussion was about whether to keep or delete this template, the consensus of which was clearly to keep it. However the wording of the template is clearly a matter for this talk page, and accusations of "attempting to evade consensus" wholly fail to assume good faith. The discussion on this talk page involved four editors, and your reverting to your preferred version does not look good and I ask you to undo your change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the deletion discussion the opinion was raised that we should use tags saying such things as "non-neutral point of view" rather than "conflict of interest". Consensus was clearly against this opinion, so the template saying "conflict of interest" was kept. Changing that template so that its essential message is "non-neutral point of view" rather than "conflict of interest" is unambiguously evading the consensus, whatever the intention may have been. The changes went beyond just changing "the wording of the template", and amounted in effect to changing it into a completely different template. A discussion involving about 20or so editors produced a very clear consensus that we should retain the ability to use a template the essential message of which was that there is a conflict of interest. For a group of four users who disagree with that decision to change the template in such a way as to mean that we lose that ability is not reasonable. If anyone persists in trying to maintain the changes then we can inform every editor who took part in the deletion discussion, so that we can get a more balanced discussion. As for suggestions that I failed to assume good faith, the words "the crowd wants to keep the template so let's see how much it can be fixed until it's ultimately deleted" seem to me to state pretty unequivocally what the purpose was in starting the discussion here. I don't have to assume what is intended when the editor in question tells us what is intended. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can stop insinuating that because we disagreed with the outcome we tried to change the essential message. A reading of the discussion proves that wrong. I think the editors who did take part here accepted that the template was to be kept, so be it. Then the discussion went to address if there were ways to improve this template to address the same concerns that caused the deletion discussion to be started. The many editors who part in that discussion did not really delve into possible changes at all, only a yes keep response. Most said little beyond it's useful. However a handful agreed that rewording the template likely should be looked at to address problems, tagging should include listing specific actionable items on the talk page and it should be clear when it could be removed. I'm the editor in question you're using to justify bad faith assumptions, and despite a comment born of frustration for starting a discussion that shouldn't have even been started (because the same discussion had just taken place a few months prior yet not noted on this page), and I can guarantee you my intent was hardly to fundamentally change what the tag was communicating. Instead my intent was to help alleviate some ongoing problems like driveby tagging against consensus (like on Safetray which as it turns out was by you) and help users who employ or find this tag create the path for article improvement so this clean-up tag is no longer needed. I second MSGJ's request for you to undue your change to your preferred version. Insomesia (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I assumed bad faith, but I may have mistaken the purpose of the change. If so then I apologise. I thought that it was done in perfectly good faith, with the intention of preventing the use of the template in its existing form, in the sincere belief that was an improvement. I thought that you sincerely and in good faith failed to realise that doing so negated the whole reason why those editors who argued for "keep" wanted the template kept. I didn't "insinuate" that you "tried to change the essential message", I directly stated it, because I genuinely thought that was your intention, and I thought that the to do that was held in good faith. However, it is clear from what you say that I was mistaken, and that was not your intention. I am sorry that I mistook your intention, and I am particularly sorry that I gave the impression of not assuming good faith. However, I have given the matter more thought, and come up with what I hope is a satisfactory solution. I have created Template:NPOV COI, which is an exact copy of Template:COI before I reverted the change. That way, those of you who prefer a template which puts the primary emphasis on the belief that an article is not written from a neutral point of view, and mentions only secondarily the possibility that this may be due to conflict of interest, can use Template:NPOV COI. Meanwhile, those of us who think that there is a place for a template which puts the emphasis on the conflict of interest problem, such as the majority in the recent deletion discussion, can use Template:COI, so everyone should be happy. The only way I can see anyone objecting to that is if someone wanted to actively prevent others from using a template that puts the emphasis on the conflict of interest if they choose to, but I am told that thinking anyone had that purpose in mind was assuming bad faith, so evidently that is not the case. Of course, an alternative would be to keep the modified version of Template:COI, and create a new copy of the unmodified one, but that would have the severe disadvantage of significantly changing the message on the pages where the existing template is transcluded. That would amount to refactoring messages posted by a large number of editors, misrepresenting what they said, and I trust nobody would be happy to do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Creating a new template is not needed, respecting the consensus on this one is what is being asked. I suggest you revert your changes and work to a consensus. Insomesia (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked over the proposed change and it is a drastic difference to a template that has been set for a few years now. The change would emphasize NPOV, which has its own tag. The purpose of this tage is to point out to our readers that a potential COI exists, so they can factor that into their analysis of the material. It is disappointing that we published this tag for a few weeks with this disingenuous wording. We need to be straightforward with our readers when it comes to suspected COI cases and the best way to do that is with this tag in its current form.  Them From  Space  02:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair criticism, which would have helped while the wording was being discussed. But even afterwards is good to know. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also to Martin, you can't rewrite a template that has been stable for years without any consensus and then expect anyone to protect the new wording. A change this fundamental requires a consensus to proceed, especially when challenged.  Them From  Space  02:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We developed consensus, that's the point. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We certainly did or no change would have occurred. Insomesia (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * About as clear an attempt at forum shopping as I have seen for quite a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How is talking about the exact tag on the tags' talkpage in any way forum shopping? Insomesia (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new parameter: concern=
See Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest for possible changes to the COI guideline and possible changes to this template, including the addition of a "concern=" parameter. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy between content and documentation
The template currently contains:
 * A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.

Meanwhile, the documentation says usage should be limited to cases where the article is biased :
 * Use this tag to request help with an article that is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or by a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., professional public relations staff).


 * Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors.

The content used to be affirmative about the existence of bias (presumably resulting from COI):
 * This article is not written from a neutral point of view, possibly because one of its authors has a conflict of interest with the subject.

The content changed in July 2012. Which should be changed to match the other - the content or the documentation? --Chealer (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't get the contradiction here. Could you please point it out again, perhaps a bit more specifically? Debresser (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "contradiction" seems like too strong a word here, but... Suppose Joe Blow was written by Joe Blow. Looking at the content, the template is warranted. However, looking at the documentation, this depends on the content. If the content is neutral, then the tag is not warranted, despite the COI. In other words, the content focuses on COI, while the documentation focuses on bias. --Chealer (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The template also says that there may be NPOV problems. I don't think the template is added unless such problems are evident in the article. So the template does confirm with th documentation. That said, I do agree that the previous version of the template was clearer in this regard. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it only says there may be NPOV problems. I can not say how people actually perceive the template, but the addition of bold Do not paragraphs strongly suggests the template was not being used as the current documentation says it should. --Chealer (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the tags says only that there "may be" POV problems. This is because the person who added it might be wrong.  He might, for example, have thought that an article that is 100% neutral and encyclopedic (which is easily achieved in a stub) needed some kind of tag at the top to "warn" people about an article that has zero actual content problems.  Or the editor might have thought that "neutral" means "contains exactly the same amount of praise and criticism", even if no reliable source criticizes the subject.  Or there might have been POV problems, but they've been resolved, and nobody's yet thought to remove the tag.
 * Put another way: If the article is (to the best of your knowledge) reasonably neutral, then you should not put this tag on it, no matter who wrote it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Major
Would folks here be open to either taking "major" out of the template text, or making a 2nd template for use if just some COI editing going on? Conflicted editors can skew just part of a larger article; hence the question. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog,
 * isn't documented, but it appears to work. (This is pretty typical for warning tags built on ambox.)  It sounds like that would address the situation that you're contemplating.
 * The point behind "major" is to discourage people from tagging articles (or even sections) if the net result is minor. This tag should only be used for serious problems.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just tried that... it replaces the word "article" with whatever you put there. so you send up with "a major contributor to this (section name) appears to have..."  I dealt with it by writing after the pipe, "this article's X section".  that worked ok. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people just place the tag in the affected section (if it's only one), and type .  It works the same as all the other tags, like  .  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ah thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

tagging draftspace article
Hello, using COI on a draftspace article kind-of-works, but links to the 'wrong' talkpage: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page."

For instance, in the article Draft:Ron_Schnell, the tag was placed in good-faith, but instead of linking to the correct location Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell, it incorrectly linked to Talk:Ron_Schnell (redlink at the time of this writing since the article has not yet been mainspaced). Although the connected_contributor was already extant at the correct Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell, this was not noticed.

So my request is, can somebody look into fixing COI, so that is it namespace sensitive? In particular, it is *not* optimal to have COI and also the variant COI_draft, such as is done with la and ld for instance. Besides the usability-slash-complexity concern of adding Yet Another Template, the problem is that, if we create the new Template:COI_draft mechanism, and hardcode it to always point to Draft_talk in the final output-sentence, there will be a double-redirect once the draft in question is page-moved to mainspace.

Instead, it would be better if Template:COI could simply be upgraded, so that when it was placed into the article Draft:Ron_Schnell, it would correctly point to Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell, and later, when the same article was mainspaced with the tag still in place, the template would automagically detect the namespace-switch, and begin correctly pointing to Talk:Ron_Schnell. Is this technologically possible?

p.s. See also, User_talk:Brianhe. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Can a template editor please implement Template:COI/sandbox to fix the above? This should make it work for every namespace and subpage, not just the mainspace. Mdann52 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <span title="User:SiBr₄">SiBr4 (<span title="User talk:SiBr₄">talk ) 12:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hostile WP contributors
Hi, is there a way to mark hostile WP contributors (people who repeatedly add biased claims to WP articles)? Schily (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. Nor should there be. If they need to be blocked, then that can easily be done. Otherwise, they can edit. You can check their talkpages for warning, to get an idea what kind of an editor you are dealing with. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe there should be no way to defend against such people? I have a person in mind that seems to be on a crusade against a specific OpenSource project and this person uses many different platforms (not only Wikipedia) under his real name, pseudonyms or anonymously to attack that project with false or at least heavily biased claims. Is there no way to defend against such a person? Schily (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked if it possible to "mark" them. It is possible to defend against them. For example, if they make use of sockpuppets, they are likely to find all of them blocked, and that can be reported at Sockpuppet investigations. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The person I have in mind has one verified pseudonymous identity on WP and did plenty of IP number based edits on WP. In addition, he is active at various other places under either his real name, under the verified WP pseudonym or anonymously. Today, a WP user was blocked that may be a sockpuppet of the user I have in mind, however this guess was just made based on the fact that this user also tried to add false claims to the same WP article for the attacked OpenSource project. Schily (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Too specific?
The description of the template says:
 * "Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia."

I think this is too restrictive. WP:OUTING uses "Wikipedia" rather than "English Wikipedia", and I think we can safely assume that it actually means to include all WMF projects, including those, like Commons and Wikiversity, that do not have "Wikipedia" in their name.

As an Admin and Checkuser on Commons, I have seen several cases where users on Commons have freely revealed their relationships to the subjects of WP:EN articles that they have written. A strict reading of the description here would prohibit me from then adding a COI tag to the article.

I propose that at least we remove "English" from the sentence as its inclusion is not at all supported by the cited policy. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is a question for WT:HARASSMENT. (I searched and found only one discussion, here which didn't get a lot of feedback)  It would be great to able to use disclosures on Wikmedia Commons (which as far as I understand is a separate "project" from Wikipedia and has its own policies and guidelines) but OUTING is strictly, strictly enforced and we do not want to run afoul of it.  Great point. Will you bring it there? Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ...And for the record, did you bring it there?? Inquiry minds want to know! I have interacted with both of you in recent months and have much respect for the two of you.  Am interested in knowing how this worked out. KDS4444 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
I'd like to request that the following two templates be added to the "See also" section: Connected contributor and UserboxCOI. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

KDS4444 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Padlock-pink-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. (The documentation is located at Template:COI/doc) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Trout me. Gah.  Done.  KDS4444 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Since the tag is not being deleted maybe we can fix its directions
Please update the language from the sandbox after others have had a chance to review it. I've drafted some initial language to address what I see as deficiencies with this clean-up tag; specifically I updated the language to emphasize that the tag is there because clean-up is needed and that the list of specific actionable items is on the talk page. I also added that the tag is not to linger after those issues have been addressed. I hope this can ease the drive-by tagging of articles with no effort to indicate what is actually wrong with an article. Or worse, the gutting of an article to one sentence that couldn't possibly be cleaned any further, yet the tag remains. Insomesia (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please use editprotected only when there is consensus for the change. My personal opinion: there are too many words in your proposed version. Perhaps you can try to reduce the verbosity a little? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the same question I've always had about this template: Why use this instead of POV and tags for whatever other issues actually exist? Anomie⚔ 14:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was exactly my point but the crowd wants to keep the template so let's see how much it can be fixed until it's ultimately deleted. MSG, I'm open to any wording suggestion that accomplished that the talk page is used for specific actionable items and that the template gets removed in tandem with those fixes. Insomesia (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with Anomie, but it seems the TfD participants do not share this opinion. So why not base it more on that wording, e.g. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * NPOV is only one reason for a COI problem article, this is why the problems need to be specifically spelled out so those willing to will fix them. If they can be combined though, or if NPOV is by far the most common issue, then perhaps that would be the best option. I do like that it focusses on the article more than the contributor. Insomesia (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What other problems with an article are likely to result from a conflict of interest? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure in theory there are many, however I agree that NPOV easily covers the specific and actionable issues of most. Insomesia (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

* Please note: the following two templates are transcluded versions, not substituted versions, and so do not reflect the status of either template at the time that the comments below them were made. In other words, the comments you see below are not meant for the the templates as they are displayed here but for earlier versions (this is what happens when you transcluded but probably should have substituted!). KDS4444 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed

 * Comment - I like the proposed wording, but think it somewhat invites the COI users to remove the tag themselves, rather than by a neutral reviewer. -- WikHead (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I've seen is that those who are against the alleged COI users are more willing to brand a label and enforce it being there than to admit we might want the article and make a path for improvement. After all if it's a hopeless article it shouldn't exist at all, the rest should be fixed. With the recent changes in the wording do you see this as still problematic? Any suggestions? My concern is getting the article fixed and having this template removed. Often the issues are addressed and the tag sits and stews on the article. Insomesia (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the sentence "please remove tag when issues have been resolved" is needed. Very few other maintenance templates say this (as it should be obvious) and this seems more at home on the template's documentation than in the message itself. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even in the short discussion several people agreed that a talk page component is called for and the tag should specify when it would be removed. I think that it should be removed is lost on some, that indeed we want the issues fixed, not left in place with a tag. Perhaps we should address some best practices in the documentation first? Insomesia (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the master solution would be to convince more editors to work this template's backlog. That however, would probably prove to be a much more difficult task, but perhaps the best point of focus for those who find the current arrangement offensive. If you're finding tagged articles where COI issues have clearly been addressed, simply pull the tag and state your reason in the edit summary. -- WikHead (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a hunch that there are people on many of these articles that are willing to do clean-up but that COI itself isn't a very clear tag as to what exactly the problems are. That would apply as well to the backlog, but what if the backlog is simply being added to because the tag is vague and unhelpful? Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it would probably be helpful if more of these contributors read WP:BOLD. This is not to discredit what you're saying, but there are times when someone just needs to step up to the plate and look the monster in the eye. If the removal of a tag is contested, it may just cause a discussion to break out. -- WikHead (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is lost on some then I think that is a problem with the editor not with the template. The wikify tag should be removed after the article is wikified but it doesn't say "Please remove this tag when the article has been wikified". The unreferenced tag should be removed after references have been added to an article, but it doesn't say "Please remove this tag after adding references to the article". That's because it is obvious and common-sense, and so it should be with this tag. Any editor wanting to keep a tag must be prepared to say what is wrong with an article. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe have a look at how the tag is applied then? I agree that an editor should have a specific reason and be ready to explain why a tag is there, but they don't seem to do that often. Safetray was an example of this. The author went to extensive measures to reveal their COI and several editors double-checked the work. Then a COI tag was just slapped on for no apparent reason accept a COI was at one time an issue. Perhaps we could specify in the instructions that the tag should be accompanied with a talk page discussion of specific actionable items, and that once those items are addressed the tag should be removed? Then the tag itself wouldn't have allude to being removed. Insomesia (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead ... the instructions (documentation) are freely editable. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't realize I could. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Shall we deploy the sandbox version? How should this template differ from Template:COI-check? Do we need both? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to deploy this then maybe redirect Template:COI-check here unless there is something quite different between the two. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you MSG for all your help on this! Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, let's see if this change sticks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Usage of this on autobiographical articles
Could someone please make it clear in the usage section that whether this tag be always replaced with autobiography template in article having content written by the subject himself? Thank you ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 19:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. Three years and no response either way to what looks like a legitimate and useful request.  I have just had a look at both templates' usage documentation, and they still do not have wording that distinguishes when one or the other should specifically or preferentially be used.  My sense is that if an article is mostly an autobiography, then it should be tagged with autobiography specifically and instead of COI.  Although a rather bold move on my part, I will now attempt to make this clear without further discussion, mostly because I do not expect this to be controversial (?).  If anyone disagrees with me, though, then please revert and give me a heads-up to let me know I've gotten it wrong or overstepped my bounds.  I will reference this discussion in my change to the usage documentation of each template. KDS4444 (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ on both pages: let me know what you think of them. I also restructured the autobiography template documentation to match the structure of the COI template more closely, along with explanation on when to place and when to remove it and by whom, surprisingly almost none of which was present previously. KDS4444 (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
The template currently mentions and links to WP:Cleanup, but the Cleanup page states that it mostly relates to things like spelling and grammar— things that don't have much to do with conflict of interest. Editors submitting COI edits probably need monitoring for less technical issues, so I'd like to suggest that the template instead read, "...It may require modification to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view and factual accuracy..." with no wikilink for the word "modification".

KDS4444 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to make suggestions but please don't use the {editprotected} template until consensus is achieved. For what it's worth I think your suggestion is sensible. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with me as well. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No further comments are forthcoming. if you could make the requested changes to Template:COI/sandbox we could progress this. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss as to how. Or maybe I am just being impatient.  But I don't see how to make the suggested change myself.  A little help??  :-)  KDS4444 (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It took me long enough, but I think I figured this out and have now made the change to the documentation sandbox. Let me know if there is anything more that I need to do, and thank you!  KDS4444 (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I made the chance to the sandbox, and nothing else seemed to happen. Recently, an IP editor replaced the sandbox content with the COI template, essentially erasing my change with regard to "cleanup"/ "modification".  Not sure what else I was supposed to do with this— it seemed like a good idea to me, it still does.  KDS4444 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)